Climate change has become significantly pronounced in the Arctic over recent decades. In addition to these climate effects, the environment has experienced severe anthropogenic pressure connected to increased human activities, including the exploitation of natural resources and tourism. The opportunity to exploit some of the natural riches of Svalbard was promptly grasped by the Soviet Union well before the 1940s. In this paper, we present the story of Pyramiden, a mining settlement in central Svalbard. The Soviet town experienced its golden age in the 1970–1980s but fell into decline in the late 1990s which corresponds well with the overall economic and geopolitical situation of the Soviet Union. The impacts of past mining activities and related urban infrastructure development are illustrated with the use of historic aerial photographs. The most pronounced changes in the terrain configuration were connected to adjustments of the river network, construction of roads, water reservoirs, and obviously mining-related activities. The natural processes overwhelmed the city infrastructure rather quickly after the abandonment of the town in 1998, though some traces of human activities may persist for decades or centuries. Nowadays, Russia has been attempting to recover the settlement especially through support of tourism and research activities.

Dominant geopolitical narratives on the Arctic argue that the region is either edging towards conflict or international law is respected and peace is maintained through cooperation to address shared concerns. While both of these narratives are present in the Arctic states’ strategies, most of them tend to support collaborative efforts. Science diplomacy (SD) is a useful mechanism in this regard as it helps states overcome potential disagreements and can stimulate cooperation in other areas. Given the growing concerns about global risks, SD is more important now than ever before. In our study, we identify and focus on three indicators for potential SD in the Arctic strategies: i) scientific infrastructure; ii) membership in intergovernmental/interparliamentary and scientific/education organisations and networks and iii) specific areas of scientific cooperation. Considering the intensive scientific activity in the region, it is not surprising that the strategies discuss different forms of research and scientific cooperation, although none explicitly use the term “science diplomacy”. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals the Arctic states do apply the SD concept in their strategies and use three types of diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science – in the three indicators.